Introduction:
Higher education is facing the constant evolution of learning technologies, and the educational community must promote the ethical and effective use of tools such as artificial intelligence (AI) through their introduction in the classroom. The ability of AI versus other documentation systems in finding complete and accurate answers has been extensively explored. However, the impact of the use of Chat GPT on knowledge acquisition and retention has not been widely reviewed in the context of veterinary genetics. On this occasion, the aim is to present a method to evaluate whether the use of ChatGPT by veterinary students can favor or, on the contrary, hinder the acquisition of knowledge in genetics, compared to the use of other traditional sources of information.  

Material and Methods:
This study involved 42 second-year Veterinary Medicine students at the University CEU UCH. The class was divided into two groups (A and B) to explore two molecular genetics techniques for studying the microbiome. Group A used ChatGPT for technique 1 and traditional search engines for technique 2, while Group B did the reverse. This crossover design ensured all students used both methodologies. After a 40-minute session, voluntary and anonymous questionnaires were conducted immediately and three weeks later to evaluate immediate and long-term knowledge acquisition. Additional questions assessed student opinions on knowledge retention using traditional search versus ChatGPT

Results:
All the students attending the class participated in this work. Among them, 60% considered that they would retain information more effectively using traditional methodologies compared to ChatGPT. However, the analysis of the students’ responses in the immediate and long-term knowledge acquisition questionnaires indicated no clear influence of the methodology on either immediate knowledge acquisition or long-term retention of knowledge on the techniques. This suggests that while students may perceive traditional methods as more effective for long term memorization, the actual impact on retention did not significantly differ between traditional and ChatGPT assisted methods in the settings of this study. This could imply that both methodologies have their own strengths and can be complementary. Therefore, integrating ChatGPT as a supplementary tool alongside traditional methods could optimize learning outcomes. This methodology, if replicated in different areas, could offer more standardized results that are faithful to reality, excluding the influence of the topic chosen to work on, the time spent on the activity and the characteristics of the questions asked.  

Conclusion:
In this study, while students thought information retention would be more efficient using traditional sources of information than using ChatGPT, no significant difference in term of immediate knowledge acquisition or long-term knowledge retention has been observed. However, the authors consider that the methodology described in the study can serve as a basis for its refinement in other areas and can be useful to evaluate this aspect of AI that is still unknown and difficult to quantify.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence, Veterinary education, Genetics, ChatGPT.